SWA1380 - diversion to KPHL after engine event
I was interested looking at the LED's on left side. They would be out of sight from LHS FD. Equally the engine nacelle was out of sight. Much would depend on CA <10,000, or perhaps a pilot did have a look. That would be interesting to know. The reason I'm curious is that there have been engine blow-ups that damaged LED's and caused an uncontrollable UAP/roll when deployed. I wonder if they conducted a flight control/flap test at 10,000'. This is such a rare event, and certainly not trained for, so anything the rest of us could learn is immensely valuable.
It may or may not be relevant that LEDs are only partially extended at that flap setting on the 737.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
His background is PR and admin. He has no specific technical qualifications I know of.
So, he's no more an aviation expert than I am. At least I used to actually work on planes!
Yes, his current job is administrative, but his brackground is not (at least not exclusively) "PR and admin", although that has been true for some previous chairmen.
He said in the media briefing that he flew Boeing 737 for 10 years, so I think that would qualify him as an aviation expert.
Wikipedia confirms he has been an airline pilot for 24 years (pilot for 32 years).
EDIT: The NTSB is also a board, not a company, so it does not have a "managing director", but a chairman.
He said in the media briefing that he flew Boeing 737 for 10 years, so I think that would qualify him as an aviation expert.
Wikipedia confirms he has been an airline pilot for 24 years (pilot for 32 years).
EDIT: The NTSB is also a board, not a company, so it does not have a "managing director", but a chairman.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bernd
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In one of the recordings I listened to I think I heard the pilots saying to the fire crew that they were putting the flaps down (my guess is in case a fire starts/evac). If they were lowered at this point, I'm wondering did they pull them up initially after landing, or land with zero or reduced flap, or land with a normal (but not full) flap setting then extend them fully?
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: BRS/GVA
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The sense I got from the various reports is that whatever broke the window also hit & seriously injured the passenger, probably knocking her unconscious, and so her upper body ending up jammed in the window with her having been partially sucked out of it would fit with the reports...
The report is she was out of the window up to her waist, and the injury likely occurred flailing in the slipstream against the fuselage.
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: London
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Identical Southwest jet in another emergency this morning. Flight 577 taking off from Nashville for Phoenix had to turn back 20 minutes later after a bird strike. Plane landed safely.
That depends on the definitions for 'rapid' and 'explosive'. In my view, this was not an explosive decompression as there was no further structural damage as a result of the first breach of the fuselage. But that's just my definition.
Personal views only...
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aside from the noise and vibrations, it is quite possible the other engine indications were pretty normal. I don’t see much damage to the engine itself, apart from the missing fan blade.
The evaquation checklist on the 737 calls for (time permitting) FL40.
You would be able to see some of the damage to the leading edge from the cockpit in a -700 model.
As for the pilots actions, the aircraft and passengers/crew are safely on the ground. Not much to debate.
Job very well done!
The evaquation checklist on the 737 calls for (time permitting) FL40.
You would be able to see some of the damage to the leading edge from the cockpit in a -700 model.
As for the pilots actions, the aircraft and passengers/crew are safely on the ground. Not much to debate.
Job very well done!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unintended consequence of derated takeoffs?
A user on AVHerald posted a question which merits an answer from the pilots here:
It must be true that if this accident had begun on the ground, there could not have been injuries from cabin decompression.
Is there any merit in the argument that stressing engines to the max on the ground from time to time would be a good idea?
Downstream consequence of derated takeoffs?
By Lee on Tuesday, Apr 17th 2018 21:32Z
Due to the way they operate, it seems the highest N1 fan speed will be encountered during climb at high altitude rather than during takeoff (since derated power takeoffs are the norm). This accident appeared to happen at almost the exact same altitude as the previous [SWA] incident (around FL300), which would be when N1 is approaching the maximum seen during the flight. Perhaps they should do a periodic max power takeoff or ground tests to 104% N1 to flush out any bad fan blades. In the past these types of failures would occur on takeoff, everything would be contained, and the cowl would stay on. Either Boeing needs to figure out how to keep the engine cowl intact if the fan throws a blade at altitude, or SW needs to do more rigorous blade inspections.
By Lee on Tuesday, Apr 17th 2018 21:32Z
Due to the way they operate, it seems the highest N1 fan speed will be encountered during climb at high altitude rather than during takeoff (since derated power takeoffs are the norm). This accident appeared to happen at almost the exact same altitude as the previous [SWA] incident (around FL300), which would be when N1 is approaching the maximum seen during the flight. Perhaps they should do a periodic max power takeoff or ground tests to 104% N1 to flush out any bad fan blades. In the past these types of failures would occur on takeoff, everything would be contained, and the cowl would stay on. Either Boeing needs to figure out how to keep the engine cowl intact if the fan throws a blade at altitude, or SW needs to do more rigorous blade inspections.
Is there any merit in the argument that stressing engines to the max on the ground from time to time would be a good idea?
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA
Age: 78
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EMT interviewed said it was apparent from looking at the patient's upper body what the end result would be but as per training, she + another EMT continued CPR until the passenger could be offloaded. One would conclude injuries were from upper body in slipstream with consequent injuries.
Report on AvHerald is flaps 5 used due to control ability concerns so higher than normal landing speed. Interesting to hear some passengers say rougher than normal landing while others say very smooth. All in one's perception. It was good to hear that many passengers had a frantic response while probably more experienced passengers kept telling them to calm down, we are going to get through this okay. Importance of experienced travelers assisting cabin crew (only 3 of them) to calm those having a panic attack.
Report on AvHerald is flaps 5 used due to control ability concerns so higher than normal landing speed. Interesting to hear some passengers say rougher than normal landing while others say very smooth. All in one's perception. It was good to hear that many passengers had a frantic response while probably more experienced passengers kept telling them to calm down, we are going to get through this okay. Importance of experienced travelers assisting cabin crew (only 3 of them) to calm those having a panic attack.
It’s not amazing when you consider that there are only eight of us pilots left on the forum 
I’ve been considering the way I would prioritise my actions in this circumstance. There would be a lot to do with the depressurisation and engine fail/fire indications occurring simultaneously. The first 120 seconds would be very intense.
I’ve been considering the way I would prioritise my actions in this circumstance. There would be a lot to do with the depressurisation and engine fail/fire indications occurring simultaneously. The first 120 seconds would be very intense.
I've got to say that having our Air Traffic brothers and sisters helping in situations like these is a great workload relief in terms of navigation, aircraft separation etc, unfortunately, my day was departing from a small far eastern airport where ATC doubled the workload with their comms and actions. The controllers on this one were just fantastic - hats off to them too.
Sounds as though the flight crew did a really great professional job.
Best
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Västerås
Age: 44
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've just rewatched it (season 1, episode 10). In their tests they couldn't get a crash test dummy to be sucked out of the plane, in any scenario.
However, they did blow out the window in a manner very similar to this one, and in the footage you can see how traumatic it would be for the passenger sitting next to it. Sucked out: no chance.
However, they did blow out the window in a manner very similar to this one, and in the footage you can see how traumatic it would be for the passenger sitting next to it. Sucked out: no chance.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It can be seen that a minor amendment to the certification requirement may relieve the interference of multiple aural alerts expressed by "Good Business Sense"
"b. Multiple Aural Alerts
(1) Aural alerts should be prioritised so that only one aural alert is presented at a time. If more than one
aural alert needs to be presented at a time, each alert must be clearly distinguishable and intelligible by the flight
crew (CS 25.1322(a)(2)).
(2) When aural alerts are provided, an active aural alert should finish before another aural alert begins.
However, active aural alerts must be interrupted by alerts from higher urgency levels if the delay to annunciate the
higher-priority alert impacts the timely response of the flight crew (CS 25.1301(a)). If the condition that triggered the
interrupted alert is still active, that alert may be repeated once the higher-urgency alert is completed. If more than
one aural alert requires immediate awareness and the interrupted alert(s) affects the safe operation of the
aeroplane, an effective alternative means of presenting the alert to the flight crew must be provided to meet the
requirements of CS 25.1322(a)(1) and (a)(2)."
"b. Multiple Aural Alerts
(1) Aural alerts should be prioritised so that only one aural alert is presented at a time. If more than one
aural alert needs to be presented at a time, each alert must be clearly distinguishable and intelligible by the flight
crew (CS 25.1322(a)(2)).
(2) When aural alerts are provided, an active aural alert should finish before another aural alert begins.
However, active aural alerts must be interrupted by alerts from higher urgency levels if the delay to annunciate the
higher-priority alert impacts the timely response of the flight crew (CS 25.1301(a)). If the condition that triggered the
interrupted alert is still active, that alert may be repeated once the higher-urgency alert is completed. If more than
one aural alert requires immediate awareness and the interrupted alert(s) affects the safe operation of the
aeroplane, an effective alternative means of presenting the alert to the flight crew must be provided to meet the
requirements of CS 25.1322(a)(1) and (a)(2)."
Perhaps they should do a periodic max power takeoff or ground tests to 104% N1 to flush out any bad fan blades.
It's particularly irrelevant in this case, given that the NTSB is already reporting indications of metal fatigue at the blade root.
